LasersHurt:I think you have no perspective whatsoever if you think this is just a skip and a jump from a dystopian police state.

Not just this but everything else going on and has gone on. Just looking at the prison-industrial complex and the abuses done by the police and federal govt types (FBI, CIA, the military), it isn't that far fetched to be fearful of this shiat.

LasersHurt:And the only reason we don't "update" amendments is because we're stupid. A stagnant government will fail EVERY time.

We DO update amendments, it's through a very specific process, and it has happened 28 times already. The Constitution is the supreme law in the land, and parts of it have been changed 28 times. (18 if you want to count the original Bill of Rights as part of the main body of the Constitution.)

Here's the process:

Article V, United States Constitution"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

LasersHurt:BraveNewCheneyWorld: In what way is it sufficiently different?

For one, these machines are more likely to be used to scan individuals while they are in public places or government property, not in their homes. Looking at me is different than looking into my house.

Looking at you is different than looking through your clothing too. People don't expect themselves to be hidden when in public, but they expect everything under their clothing to remain concealed. IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

LasersHurt:For one, these machines are more likely to be used to scan individuals while they are in public places or government property, not in their homes. Looking at me is different than looking into my house.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I've bolded the areas that are relevant in this case. Houses are just one part of the 4th. Things on or about your body (effects), your ID and other documents (papers), and yourself (person) are protected against searches without a warrant or probably cause. This scanner does so without either a warrant or probable cause.

Using such a device around a speaking dignitary, such as the President? Sure, I'm okay with that, that falls under probable cause. On the street, minding your own business? No way.

Our elected officials justify violating our rights and privacy on the grounds that some people are criminals.

Ok, fine. From now on, the financial information of all elected officials shall be complete open to the public. Every single farking transaction, no exception. Because some politicians have been known to take bribes. And since police officers hold a position of power, we have to be certain they are above repoach. So their financial information shall be public, too. This is fully justifiable because there have been instances of police corruption.

tgambitg:LasersHurt: For one, these machines are more likely to be used to scan individuals while they are in public places or government property, not in their homes. Looking at me is different than looking into my house.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I've bolded the areas that are relevant in this case. Houses are just one part of the 4th. Things on or about your body (effects), your ID and other documents (papers), and yourself (person) are protected against searches without a warrant or probably cause. This scanner does so without either a warrant or probable cause.

Using such a device around a speaking dignitary, such as the President? Sure, I'm okay with that, that falls under probable cause. On the street, minding your own business? No way.

/I couldn't have said it better. This is tantamount to an illegal search without just cause, and any "evidence" that is fruits of said search is poisonous, and therefore inadmissible to any court. They must like lawsuits in NY.

LasersHurt:redmid17: Read the fourth amendment in its entirety and then come back to us. We will wait.

You keep acting like I don't understand it. I do. I disagree. That's different.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

No you don't understand it. You think that persons and their effects are somehow different than houses with regards to the 4th amendment. They are not. You might disagree, but you're just wrong.

The technology is minimally different. It uses a different part of the spectrum to do the same thing. That's comparable to the people saying that there was no way DC v Heller was going to be applied to the states even though it was incredibly obvious to people who had read the case that McDonald v Chicago was going to incorporate the 2nd amendment.

Rincewind53:WalkingCarpet: In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that warrantless use of thermal imaging cameras when used to see if a house is emitting too much heat (indicating a grow operation) is a 4th Amendment violation. Does the NYPD really think the warrantless use of terahertz scanning technology to detect metal items hidden in people's clothing is constitutional?

That might have been true, once upon a time. But now that younger americans, who didnt experience the assault bans under clinton, have a hardon for removing weapons from society, it will be a breeze to unleash this beast in NYC.

LasersHurt:redmid17: Read the fourth amendment in its entirety and then come back to us. We will wait.

You keep acting like I don't understand it. I do. I disagree. That's different.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

Maybe what we can do is set up a way in which certain people can preemptively give up all of their rights and may therefor be allowed to be scanned in public in any way which the gov't seems fit. You'll get issued a special hat so we all can avoid you.

Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

LasersHurt: Personally, i don't see why people can say what they want about the government without going to jail. I think it is perfectly acceptable to do some jail time if you speak poorly about the people in charge. I'm not trying to be an a-hole about it, i just disagree with the concept of free speech and i think we should revisit on a bi-annual basis so we can get a current list of words and phrases that we can and can't utter in public. You can say what you wan tin your own home as long you don't say it loud enough to be picked up by microphones from right outside the door.

Yes, I do, which is why I have repeatedly noted the idea of revisiting and reforming. Because I think things that are DIFFERENT than the current law.

redmid17: The technology is minimally different.

How is this "minimally different" than trying to use IR to peep at children? Did you see the same screen images I did in the article?

Once again you might disagree with, which is your right, but you are *wrong* about it. Don't frame it as a statement of fact and no one would be calling you out on it.

The Kyllo v US decision, which is the SCOTUS decision everyone is referring to, did not involve infrared cameras and kid diddler wannabes. It involved police using thermal imaging devices to look for marijuana grow houses. SCOTUS ruled that it was an illegal search since they did not have a warrant. NYPD wants to use a device that relies onterahertz radiation instead of thermal radiation. That's basically saying "Well they said I can't use fuel in my car, but they never said anything about used corn oil (being used as fuel)!" The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment. These are both passive scanning with different types of radiation. Pretty simple stuff to comprehend, no?

LasersHurt:BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

Different technology only in the fact that it views a different wavelength. Otherwise, it's an identical concept in that you are using technology to reveal something that was concealed from human perception.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:LasersHurt: BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

Different technology only in the fact that it views a different wavelength. Otherwise, it's an identical concept in that you are using technology to reveal something that was concealed from human perception.

Right, but when your comparison point is "filming kids in bathing suits" I think you need something less tenuous. "Identical" concept? Really?

LasersHurt:BraveNewCheneyWorld: LasersHurt: BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

Different technology only in the fact that it views a different wavelength. Otherwise, it's an identical concept in that you are using technology to reveal something that was concealed from human perception.

Right, but when your comparison point is "filming kids in bathing suits" I think you need something less tenuous. "Identical" concept? Really?

Yeah, nobody likes it when they're caught arguing for the rights of pedophiles, but here you are. Either way, someone's looking through your clothing, their reason for doing it doesn't mitigate the invasion of privacy.

redmid17:God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.

Stone Meadow:g4lt: I'm just waiting for the enterprising young idiot that can actually figure out how to make most of a gun with a 3D printer

You mean like this one?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 850x594]

FTFL: "CORRECTIONS: The AR-15 model was not entirely printed with a 3D printer, only a piece of the material was created with plastic (as shown in the second photo). Only the lower receiver was printed by HaveBlue," So no, not like that one

LasersHurt:redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.

For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

tgambitg:redmid17: LasersHurt: jaybeezey: Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

This is the kind of hysterical shiat I've been talking about. Lunacy.

redmid17: The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Is that stated in the decision?

No it's not. I have just been spouting off about it for the last hour with nothing to back it up. Try looking it up. God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

He's going to nit pick it, because the words 'passive scanning' are not explicitly in the decision, even though the concept is well described in the decision.

The passive nature of the device is mentioned twice in the decision.

LasersHurt:redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.

Just read the decision. It applies to the entire 4th amendment, not houses. If you're daft enough to think that, then I have a bridge NYC to sell you. You can put passive scanners on it I'm sure.

Shadow Blasko:g4lt: Stone Meadow: weiserfireman: Dimensio: Stone Meadow: Every part of a fully functioning handgun can be made from plastic, tho Federal law requires a minimum magnetic metal content (about 3 ounces, iirc).

I await reference to a fully functional firearm made entirely of plastic, including the barrel, any incorporated springs and the ammunition.

Yeah, I am waiting for that too. I would expect some sort of all ceramic gun before we see a plastic one.

All-plastic guns are illegal under Federal 'undetectable firearms' statutes, so you won't see any on Gunbrokers, but GIS for 'carbon fiber barrels', 'plastic pistol frame', 'caseless ammunition', etc., to see what the state of the art is in parts on sale now to the general public. Also, google 'CIA ceramic gun' for lots of discussion of their black-ops capability.

I'm just waiting for the enterprising young idiot that can actually figure out how to make most of a gun with a 3D printer

Do you know what you just did?

Issued a challenge to one of the most challenge-averse groups of sociopaths in human history? Nope, I have no idea.

tgambitg:For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

I'm not being obtuse, I am asking if that decision specifically mentioned that it should apply to a person outside of the home. The whole point he has been making is hinged on the idea that this decision applied in this instance, to scanning people outside of the home. I'm trying to ascertain if the decision DOES specifically mention it, or is just tenuously tied by their both being 4th amendment issues.

My point is trying to support the idea that this is sufficiently different as to require separate review - as I read it, that decision is centered on the home, and the court might feel differently about the person in public.

tgambitg:LasersHurt: redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.

For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

LasersHurt:tgambitg: For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

I'm not being obtuse, I am asking if that decision specifically mentioned that it should apply to a person outside of the home. The whole point he has been making is hinged on the idea that this decision applied in this instance, to scanning people outside of the home. I'm trying to ascertain if the decision DOES specifically mention it, or is just tenuously tied by their both being 4th amendment issues.

My point is trying to support the idea that this is sufficiently different as to require separate review - as I read it, that decision is centered on the home, and the court might feel differently about the person in public.

WalkingCarpet:In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.

It's not a tenuous tie in. It's explicitly mentioned in the same class.

LasersHurt:tgambitg: For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

I'm not being obtuse, I am asking if that decision specifically mentioned that it should apply to a person outside of the home. The whole point he has been making is hinged on the idea that this decision applied in this instance, to scanning people outside of the home. I'm trying to ascertain if the decision DOES specifically mention it, or is just tenuously tied by their both being 4th amendment issues.

My point is trying to support the idea that this is sufficiently different as to require separate review - as I read it, that decision is centered on the home, and the court might feel differently about the person in public.

A better way of doing it, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to limit what government could do, is if it is even tenuously connected, it is not allowed. Remember that the people who wrote the document just got out from under an oppressive government and were trying to prevent that from happening again. View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing. The Fourth goes out of it's way to say you can't search a person, their homes, or their stuff (papers and effects) without a damn good reason (probable cause in case of expedience, or a warrant in terms of planned searches).

tgambitg:View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing.

That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.

I just did. It's about houses/the home. Those are the words they come back to in each section. There is no mention of the person.

Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision? Jesus do you expect these to be all encompassing? The 4th amendment goes out of its way to explicitly list houses, person, papers, and effects together. Ergo, they are the same for all intents and purposes. You are being deliberately obtuse. You want SCOTUS reasoning wrapped up with a nice bow and set down in front of you, opened, and spoon fed into your mouth.

LasersHurt:tgambitg: View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing.

That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government to do specifically what was mentioned in the document. All other things are reserved for the people and the States.

LasersHurt:tgambitg: View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing.

That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.

That's a clever little device. I'm not sure how the hell it will work in real-world environments though nor why it's being called a "weapons scanner" when it's really just a "anything that blocks your profile scanner."

g4lt:Stone Meadow: g4lt: I'm just waiting for the enterprising young idiot that can actually figure out how to make most of a gun with a 3D printer

You mean like this one?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 850x594]

FTFL: "CORRECTIONS: The AR-15 model was not entirely printed with a 3D printer, only a piece of the material was created with plastic (as shown in the second photo). Only the lower receiver was printed by HaveBlue," So no, not like that one

Of course it wasn't entirely printed in plastic. No one suggested it was. Plastic barrels (carbon fiber reinforced plastic) are available. Plastic (polymer) frames are available. Plastic magazines are printable. In other words, plastic guns can be made, and will be if legislation does tighten up considerably. Heck, the guy who built that gun first built a plastic .22LR through which he fired 200 rounds without failure to test it. Way back in 1987 the Patent Office issued a patent for a plastic/ceramic .22 pistol. Link

So quit quibbling over the reality of plastic guns. They're here and they will greatly undermine detection technologies like what's highlighted in this thread. Even if the barrel is steel it will just look like a pen in his pocket. Put the bullets or magazine in another pocket and the weapon is undetectable by this technology.

LasersHurt:redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

tgambitg:LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.